The Sedona Conference

The Sedona Conference
Name	The Sedona Conference
Formation	1997
Type	Think tank
Headquarters	Sedona, Arizona
Leader title	Executive Director
Leader name	Richard D. "Rick" Moberly

The Sedona Conference is a nonprofit legal research and policy organization founded in Sedona, Arizona, that develops consensus-driven guidance on complex litigation issues, electronic discovery, privacy, and intellectual property. The organization publishes widely cited principles and commentary that influence courts, law firms, corporations, and government agencies, and convenes multistakeholder meetings drawing participants from the judiciary, private practice, academia, and industry. Its work intersects with court decisions, rulemaking, and professional standards in the United States and internationally.

History

The organization was established in 1997 amid growing attention to electronic discovery challenges arising in federal and state litigation following developments in United States v. Microsoft Corp. litigation and debates around Federal Rules of Civil Procedure amendments. Early participants included judges from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, practitioners from AmLaw firms involved in cases like AOL v. Luminant and Enron-era litigation, and academics associated with Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, and Stanford Law School. Over subsequent decades it released influential reports contemporaneous with major judicial guidance such as opinions from the United States Supreme Court, rulings in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and pronouncements from the American Bar Association. The group's growth mirrored broader legal developments including the rise of eDiscovery technologies, regulatory initiatives by the Federal Trade Commission, and legislative activity in state legislatures such as those in California, New York, and Texas.

Mission and Organizational Structure

The Sedona Conference's mission emphasizes consensus-based, practical solutions for complex legal issues, aligning with stakeholders from law schools like Columbia Law School and University of Chicago Law School, organizations such as the American Bar Association and Association of Corporate Counsel, and private-sector entities including IBM, Microsoft Corporation, and Google LLC. Governance includes an executive director, an executive committee, and volunteer working groups modeled on advisory bodies similar to those in RAND Corporation and Brookings Institution. Members comprise federal and state judges, partners from firms like Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, corporate counsel from General Electric and Cisco Systems, and scholars from institutions like University of Pennsylvania Law School and Georgetown University Law Center. Funding sources have included membership dues, conference fees, and sponsorships from technology firms and law firms.

Key Publications and Principles

The organization is known for producing widely cited documents including the "Sedona Principles" on electronic discovery, commentary on proportionality tied to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26, and guidance on data privacy and cross-border discovery. Its publications address interplay with international instruments and cases such as the General Data Protection Regulation in the European Union, rulings referencing Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, and analyses consistent with decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Other outputs include benchbooks, model orders, and best-practice guides relevant to disputes involving patents in contexts akin to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, trademark litigation with parallels to Matal v. Tam, and trade secrets controversies similar to Waymo v. Uber. The publications often cite jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of the United States, state supreme courts such as the California Supreme Court, and international tribunals engaging with cross-border discovery.

Influence on U.S. and International Litigation Practice

Court opinions at the district and appellate level have referenced the organization's work in decisions involving discovery disputes, proportionality, and sanctions; these include opinions in circuits like the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and district courts in jurisdictions such as the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of California. Regulatory agencies and bar associations have incorporated its approaches into guidance and continuing legal education; examples of parallel institutional influence include the Department of Justice policies, statements by the Federal Trade Commission, and practice advisories issued by the International Bar Association. Internationally, multinational corporations and litigators in forums across United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Australia reference its commentary when addressing conflicts between discovery obligations and laws like the UK Data Protection Act and EU GDPR.

Conferences, Working Groups, and Education Programs

The organization convenes semiannual conferences in Sedona and regional meetings that attract judges, general counsel, partners from firms like Latham & Watkins and Jones Day, and technology providers such as Oracle Corporation and Amazon Web Services. Its working groups focus on topics including electronic document retention, data privacy, patent litigation, and information governance, and they collaborate with academic programs at Harvard Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, and NYU School of Law to offer continuing legal education accredited by state bars like those of California and New York. Programs often feature panels with judges from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, scholars from Michigan Law School, and corporate counsel from Apple Inc. and Facebook, Inc..

Criticism and Controversies

Critics have argued that its consensus model may reflect perspectives of large law firms and technology companies such as Microsoft Corporation and Google LLC while underrepresenting small firms, public interest entities, and consumer advocates represented by organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU. Some commentators in law reviews at institutions like Columbia Law School and Stanford Law School have debated its recommendations on cost-shifting, data preservation, and cross-border discovery, contrasting them with rulings from courts including the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and critiques from practitioners in regional bar associations such as the New York State Bar Association. Questions have arisen about transparency in sponsorship and membership akin to broader debates involving think tanks such as American Enterprise Institute and Cato Institute.

Category:Legal research organizations